Clarence Cain

The Liberal/Left Media has found two or more women willing to claim that Herman Cain was guilty of “sexually suggestive” language, thereby graduating the Liberal/Left’s “step n’ fetchit” caricaturization of Herman Cain to that of the predatory black male. Read that again, “sexually suggestive language”. What is that supposed to mean? Did these women overhear Cain discussing the relative merits of pizza pepperonis?

My first reaction is that, if true, such suggestive language should only endear a candidate to the Democrats. Witness the behaviors of Kennedy(s), LBJ, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Jesse Jackson and company. Had Cain actually pawed women, the Democrats would claim him to be one of their own.

My second reaction is as follows: either come up with a semen-stained dress or go pound sand, hypocrites!

My third reaction to ask why it is that people, especially black people, can’t see through the profound racism that courses through Democrat veins?

This is pretty much Clarence Thomas redux. The difference, this time, is that we’ve already seen the playbook.

Share this:

Like this:

I read the politico dot com article last night, four pages. The allegations in it are incredibly vague, and in four pages, there are only two specific claims that I could see:

1. Herman Cain made offensive gestures that were *not* sexual in nature but were offensive to one accuser.
2. Herman Cain invited the other accuser to his hotel suite.

That’s awfully thin gruel.

If that’s the best that politico dot com can give us after “weeks of investigation”, what is one supposed to do with this information?

The problem is the non-disclosure agreements, which apparently prevent the accusers and Herman Cain from commenting. The best we might see is anonymous quoting from someone who would provide the details of anything that apparently happened, with no idea of whether those quotes are first, second, or third-hand.

So this completely vague set of accusations will sit out there and spin, possibly eating away like an acid at Cain’s credibility. Hmmm. Without further details, all I can do is ignore it. I could never judge anyone based on information this vague and limited.

Charles Martel

I remember this old Jimmy Stewart movie where he plays a stubborn airplane crash investigator who’s determined to prove that an airliner fell from the sky from something other than freak chance. He suspects metal fatigue, which nobody else believes. Besides, the post-crash investigation has gotten expensive already and there are political considerations in pushing the investigation too far.

So the Stewart character sets up a secret test where he subjects an intact section of the aircraft’s fuselage to repeated blows from a mechanical device designed to simulate the effects of repeated take-offs, flights, and landings. The people around him think he’s crazy.

Finally, of course, when the crap is hitting the fan and he’s about to lose everything, tiny cracks appear at the corners of the airplane’s windows—cracks that later widen and cause explosive decompression. (The movie is based on the famous Comet jet crashes of the early 50s when the UK’s astonishingly advanced flagship passenger jets began crashing in mid-flight. Investigators later found hairline cracks around the windows that led to the consequences above.)

Think of the American electorate, particularly the black American electorate, as that fuselage. Sooner or later, if we are patient enough, repeated blows of Democratic racism are going to create some cracks. Small ones at first, but they will lead to something catastrophic if the Democrats don’t stop playing the racist card. They can’t and won’t, so we should don our armor of Jimmy Stewart-type fortitude and endurance and await the inevitable.

Libby

There’s definitely a double-standard. It seems that Democrats, when successful at hitting on women(e.g. Ted Kennedy, Clinton), get a pass, but when Republicans are unsuccessful (Thomas, Cain, the airport bathroom stall guy), they’re painted as predators and harassers.
Also, this sure smacks of a “them black men are goin’ after our womens” dog-whistle, doesn’t it?

jj

I do think of the American electorate, Charles. You better have a supply of patience the size of Texas.

suek

>>The problem is the non-disclosure agreements, which apparently prevent the accusers and Herman Cain from commenting. >>

Ok…so who/what’s the source of the information?

I heard – over the weekend – a statement that it was a Democrat source, and then heard that “oh no…not us – it was the Romney/Perry campaign”.

So, for me, first comes the credibility issue, then comes the issue of the source.

I’m inclined to dismiss the accusations – but I’d sure like to know who the sources are – especially if there are non-disclosure agreements. That might mean that somebody is breaking the disclosure barrier, although it could be a co-worker who didn’t exactly appreciate _something_ about Cain. Disgruntled employee??

Actually, given that Times report, I’d like to know more about the source. It’s to be expected that if someone comes in with the job of making major changes, somebody’s going to get bent out of shape. When it happens, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Some people carry grudges a _long_ time…

It was “No Highway in the Skies”, Charles; an excellent movie with Glynis Johns as the ‘stewardess’ who believes in the Stewart character because “you’re the smartest man I know.”

Yeah, the title of the movie and the co-star is a bit off topic, but the topic is just so g-d disgusting. The farther along we get in just about everything, the dumber Liberals get and the more people they manage to drag down with them with their insatiable quest for the ultimate stupidity.

I was asked on the first day of History of Modern Art class how far back we should look for modern art and I said, “Two, maybe three years.” Got a laugh and recognition from the instructor who used that idea in following years to great effect. In the case of Liberals, history only starts 5 minutes ago, but only if it’s convenient.

In 2008, during the presidential primary campaign, I wrote two posts about the history Democrats don’t want people to know – Civil Rights History Democrats Don’t Want You to Know and More History Democrats Don’t Want You to Know. Liberal friends and family read both pieces, said, ‘Huh! I didn’t know that!’ and promptly forgot everything they’d just learned just proving once again you can lead a horse to water and you can even make him drink, but you cannot take the blinders from the eyes of a Liberal.

You can tell who the Demoncrats fear the most by who they spend the most time trying to personally destroy. That has, historically, been a more accurate signal of who the Republican nominee is than the Republican’s own caucus corruptions.

Danny Lemieux

I think that you are right, Ymarsaker. They destroy those that frighten their hold on power the most. Sarah Palin is a good example.

Similarly, the Republican candidates to whom the MSM cozies up the most are the ones that we should be most careful to avoid. Witness John McCain.

Mike Devx

I just heard that Karl Rove is declaring that Herman Cain is over, that he is doomed to total collapse. Game over.

The RINO Establishment is certainly piling on gleefully. Within 24 hours of these unsupported, anonymous allegations that require a lot more corroboration to be considered serious. Thank you for showing your true colors, RINO Establishment. Especially Karl Rove. To HELL with you.

suek

Karl’s been saying that for a while now.

I like Karl Rove. I have a great deal of respect for his talent and ability.

I also hope he’s dead wrong.

Danny Lemieux

Then again, it isn’t the first time that Herman Cain has been declared “dead candidate walking”.

I admire Karl Rove as a brilliant strategist, so I listen carefully to what he says…with a big grain of salt.

The problem with Karl Rove is two-fold: 1) he sees politics as a game that should be limited to Washington insiders and 2) he isn’t candid about who he is supporting (who is paying his bills?) while he undermines any potential challengers. Whenever I listen to his analysis, I always ask myself, “what’s his agenda on this point?”.

Michael Adams

Since I am old enough to remember real racism, as distinct from the phony charges currently hurled this way and that, I really squirm in my chair when I hear that sort of accusation leveled at an American man of African descent. That stuff goes back quite a way, before the turn of the nineteenth century, and was also leveled at Caucasian Southerners, because we had “that African influence”. It ought to go without saying that it’s the sort of charge for which innocence is no defense.

If it really did come from either Romney or Perry, that knowledge ought to finish off their candidacy, because anyone who would stoop so low would be dangerous in the White House.

Nasty on stilts!

Mike Devx

My vitriol against Karl Rove isn’t that he’s been declaring Cain’s candidacy impossible – I already KNEW that, and dismissed his analysis because of it. No, my vitriol is based on the idea that because *of this scandal*, in particular, that Cain’s candidacy is finally (thankfully, to him) dead.

To accept this accusation – as it currently stands – as deserving TOTAL credibility, is utterly dishonorable on his part.

What does he know that we don’t know. He should put up or shut up. Since he doesn’t know anything that we don’t know, he should SHUT THE HELL UP. Because he doesn’t know. It’s despicable.